ANNOUNCEMENT: New Report System Information

No Swansong · Nov 30, 2007

jessesgirl said:
Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing that "the staff" is doing things that are subversive, one-sided, biased, etc., etc.

Respectfully asked why read these threads then?

Just because you as members have issues with a handful of staff members doesn't mean that the staff as a whole is bad.

No one has said that staff is bad as a whole what is bad is the policy of closing report threads

It is likely that the staff you are refferning to isn't even bad, maybe they are. But I don't think it is fair to say that we are all that way.

The individual I was referring to isn't a bad person but the individual is not consistent or fair to members, that makes the individual a bad staff member. We all have gifts, it is obvious that moderation is not a gift given to this particular individual.

And again, most importantly NOBODY has said or implied that all of the staff is bad or unfair etc.

The staff (myself included) volunteer time out of our days and our lives to see that this site runs smoothly with as little controversy and as few issues as possible. It is a thankless job and while I can accept that, making us out to be some sort of horrible people is unacceptable in my opinion. I can nearly guarantee you that at LEAST 99% of us are here, dealing with all the crap that comes with moderating because we want this site to be good for YOU, the members.

I was on staff far longer than you have been and was a supervisor and I would not agree with your numbers. There are many people on staff who have authority issues and who have an agenda.

I am not trying to debate here because as you can tell, I don't do debate well. I probably stumbled over my words in this post because I do that when I am upset. What it boils down to is this: I do this because this is my ministry and while I can accept that it is thankless, I can't accept conspiracy theorists thinking that the WHOLE staff is out to get them.

That is three times you have something about the whole staff. Please link me to a post that claims the whole staff is out to get anyone. I don't believe anyone has made that assertion, I am certain that I haven't as I know many very capable and excellent moderators and sups. But without accountability those who are not excellent will cast a pall upon those who are and will continue to add fuel to the fire. With the report threads open then there is some small amount of accountability.

Lindon Tinuviel · Nov 30, 2007

jessesgirl said:
Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing that "the staff" is doing things that are subversive, one-sided, biased, etc., etc.

Just because you as members have issues with a handful of staff members doesn't mean that the staff as a whole is bad. It is likely that the staff you are refferning to isn't even bad, maybe they are. But I don't think it is fair to say that we are all that way.

The staff (myself included) volunteer time out of our days and our lives to see that this site runs smoothly with as little controversy and as few issues as possible. It is a thankless job and while I can accept that, making us out to be some sort of horrible people is unacceptable in my opinion. I can nearly guarantee you that at LEAST 99% of us are here, dealing with all the crap that comes with moderating because we want this site to be good for YOU, the members. I do my best to be honest, fair and just in every report that I work and every moderator that I know does the same.

I am not trying to debate here because as you can tell, I don't do debate well. I probably stumbled over my words in this post because I do that when I am upset. What it boils down to is this: I do this because this is my ministry and while I can accept that it is thankless, I can't accept conspiracy theorists thinking that the WHOLE staff is out to get them.

I think you did just fine.

The issue isn't really that you are all bad. The issue is that, with clamp-down secrecy, you have an exaggerated opportunity to do bad things. Yes, good people often do bad things in order to achieve a good result.

And then, there are the few bad ones who are actually protected by all the smoke and shadows.

The point is simply that you can do bad things. You can get away with it. And there's really nothing we can do about it.

Bombila · Nov 30, 2007

Jessesgirl, it isn't the staff, per se. It is the secrecy and inability of members to know things we should know. We should be able to observe how staff handle reports, how they interact with reportees. This would be good for staff as well. Members are much more likely to be agreeable if we can see that staff really are caring, considerate, intelligent in their decisions, and fair. When we can't observe, we rely on rumour and innuendo, not good for staff, not good for members, and in the end, not even good for LeeD's pocketbook.

Nimrauko · Nov 30, 2007

jessesgirl said:
Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing that "the staff" is doing things that are subversive, one-sided, biased, etc., etc.

Just because you as members have issues with a handful of staff members doesn't mean that the staff as a whole is bad. It is likely that the staff you are refferning to isn't even bad, maybe they are. But I don't think it is fair to say that we are all that way.

The staff (myself included) volunteer time out of our days and our lives to see that this site runs smoothly with as little controversy and as few issues as possible. It is a thankless job and while I can accept that, making us out to be some sort of horrible people is unacceptable in my opinion. I can nearly guarantee you that at LEAST 99% of us are here, dealing with all the crap that comes with moderating because we want this site to be good for YOU, the members. I do my best to be honest, fair and just in every report that I work and every moderator that I know does the same.

I am not trying to debate here because as you can tell, I don't do debate well. I probably stumbled over my words in this post because I do that when I am upset. What it boils down to is this: I do this because this is my ministry and while I can accept that it is thankless, I can't accept conspiracy theorists thinking that the WHOLE staff is out to get them.

I dont think I said that the whole staff was bad. But one bad apple can ruin a bunch. My post was in reference to the secrecy going on now with reports. IF everything is on the up and up why the need for secrecy? It wasnt a personal attack on you, and its odd that you'd assume such, but again I am not saying anything.

jessesgirl · Nov 30, 2007

I didn't take it as a personal attack on me...you can look into it as odd if you so choose. I took it as an atack on the staff that busts their humps to keep this site running smoothly.

A New Dawn · Nov 30, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
Yes, in Theology, but I cannot access the reports on Debates.

Huh. I cannot access my reports in Theology.

No Swansong · Nov 30, 2007

jessesgirl said:
I didn't take it as a personal attack on me...you can look into it as odd if you so choose. I took it as an atack on the staff that busts their humps to keep this site running smoothly.

Expecting accountability is not an attack.

Nimrauko · Nov 30, 2007

Don't take this the wrong way. You guys wouldn't do what you do if it wasn't for us members. Just like this government, you work for us, and it is well within our rights to demand accountability. Now again you have avoided my point, if the staff is flawless and doing only good, why the secrecy? It doesn't make sense. Honest people don't deal in shadows and secrecy.

Glass*Soul · Nov 30, 2007

jessesgirl said:
I didn't take it as a personal attack on me...you can look into it as odd if you so choose. I took it as an atack on the staff that busts their humps to keep this site running smoothly.

We would like to actually see you doing it rather than simply being told about it. We want to see and acknowledge those who are doing a good job and also to call to account those few who do not.

There is a middle ground between havng all reports wide open for everyone to comment in and having them private. I suggest having them open for all registered members to see with the reported person able to comment.

Advantages for good staff: we can see and appreciate all your good work. When a few staff misbehave you will be less likely to be tarred with the same brush, as the true culprit will easily be singled out. We learn to trust you.

Advantages for not so good staff: those few will be less tempted to give in to an urge to abuse their power, as their work will be scrutinized by all.

Advantages for non-staff members: less paranoia! (If everything is fair and above board, we'll know it.) More opportunities to learn how the staff are applying the rules (an important thing to know with staff being given so much discretion).

IamRedeemed · Nov 30, 2007

Very well spoken brother. Especially the parts I underlined below. (which was most of it. )

God bless.

jtbdad said:
Respectfully asked why read these threads then?

No one has said that staff is bad as a whole what is bad is the policy of closing report threads

The individual I was referring to isn't a bad person but the individual is not consistent or fair to members, that makes the individual a bad staff member. We all have gifts, it is obvious that moderation is not a gift given to this particular individual.

And again, most importantly NOBODY has said or implied that all of the staff is bad or unfair etc.

I was on staff far longer than you have been and was a supervisor and I would not agree with your numbers. There are many people on staff who have authority issues and who have an agenda.

That is three times you have something about the whole staff. Please link me to a post that claims the whole staff is out to get anyone. I don't believe anyone has made that assertion, I am certain that I haven't as I know many very capable and excellent moderators and sups. But without accountability those who are not excellent will cast a pall upon those who are and will continue to add fuel to the fire. With the report threads open then there is some small amount of accountability.

IamRedeemed · Nov 30, 2007

Lindon Tinuviel said:
I think you did just fine.

The issue isn't really that you are all bad. The issue is that, with clamp-down secrecy, you have an exaggerated opportunity to do bad things. Yes, good people often do bad things in order to achieve a good result.

And then, there are the few bad ones who are actually protected by all the smoke and shadows.

The point is simply that you can do bad things. You can get away with it. And there's really nothing we can do about it.

jtbdad said:
Expecting accountability is not an attack.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Dec 1, 2007

Whether report threads bes open or not, at the very least BOTH the reportER and the reportEE should be able to participate and post to them. So often important issues like harassment, baiting, etc. are so fraught with nuances and subtexts what gets built up between ppls once a posting history gets established, that Staff standing outside the situation just plain cannot detect these things because they aren't part of the same shared "subtext". There are ppls on this site that can flame the absolute living crap out of you without ever legalistically breaking a rule -- and they know it. If we bes going to enforce a "no corrupt communications" rule that would be one heckuva place to start ...

Moriah ((is it still OK to say Heckuva?))

A New Dawn · Dec 1, 2007

Moriah_Conquering_Wind said:
Whether report threads bes open or not, at the very least BOTH the reportER and the reportEE should be able to participate and post to them. So often important issues like harassment, baiting, etc. are so fraught with nuances and subtexts what gets built up between ppls once a posting history gets established, that Staff standing outside the situation just plain cannot detect these things because they aren't part of the same shared "subtext". There are ppls on this site that can flame the absolute living crap out of you without ever legalistically breaking a rule -- and they know it. If we bes going to enforce a "no corrupt communications" rule that would be one heckuva place to start ...

Moriah ((is it still OK to say Heckuva?))

I completely agree with Moriah here. There are harassment issues that go on and staff, not being there for every single post and response that is made, do not understand, or see, the harassment that goes on, and short of reporting dozens of posts that demonstrate it (which I have done, only to be called a spite reporter), and one report can't show it because it is a snapshot of a single response, I think it should be allowed to have both reporter and reportee be able to post in the report.

D'Ann · Dec 1, 2007

I liked open reports and I liked being able to read the Staff Conference Room threads. It was nice to have access to these options when I was going through staff withdrawal for a bit of time after resigning.

That being said, I trust staff to be fair and honorable and to do their very best in Christ to work the reports. As much as I loved viewing and commenting in the reports, I truly understand how difficult it must have been for staff members to actually work the reports.

Either we trust staff to do the right thing or we don't. I trust staff because I've been in their shoes. Most of staff are good people with good hearts and a strong faith in Christ. We need to have faith in them.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Dec 1, 2007

A New Dawn said:
There are harassment issues that go on and staff, not being there for every single post and response that is made, do not understand, or see, the harassment that goes on, and short of reporting dozens of posts that demonstrate it (which I have done, only to be called a spite reporter), and one report can't show it because it is a snapshot of a single response, I think it should be allowed to have both reporter and reportee be able to post in the report.

^^ exactly ^^

Glass*Soul · Dec 1, 2007

D'Ann said:
I liked open reports and I liked being able to read the Staff Conference Room threads. It was nice to have access to these options when I was going through staff withdrawal for a bit of time after resigning.

That being said, I trust staff to be fair and honorable and to do their very best in Christ to work the reports. As much as I loved viewing and commenting in the reports, I truly understand how difficult it must have been for staff members to actually work the reports.

Either we trust staff to do the right thing or we don't. I trust staff because I've been in their shoes. Most of staff are good people with good hearts and a strong faith in Christ. We need to have faith in them.

I think this is a false dilemma (that we either trust staff or we do not). Not every member of staff is equally trustworthy. Some I trust in some situations but not in others. Some I don't know well enough to have any feel for whether or not I should trust them. There are documented instances of some staff having broken trust on this board in the past, but I certainly don't automatically tar all staff with that same brush. Some staff have unsullied reputations. Some staff that I felt I could trust under the previous system are starting to worry me a little under this new one (and that is a very sad state of affairs).

Why in the world should we make the question of whether or not the staff are doing their job properly a question of trust anyway? Who benefits from that?

IamRedeemed · Dec 1, 2007

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not every member of staff is equally trustworthy is right, and that is not something that has anything to do with any decision a member makes to trust or not trust staff. Everyone would like to believe the best. That would be ideal. But it isn't real.

Some staff members having proven they are untrustworthy and unobjective,
have made that ideal an impossible expectation of members, as that is a valid reason
for members to not trust ALL staff.

It is ludicrous to lay the burden on members as though they
are just "picking on staff" when members have already
have first hand experience with this issue.

Glass*Soul said:
I think this is a false dilemma (that we either trust staff or we do not). Not every member of staff is equally trustworthy. Some I trust in some situations but not in others. Some I don't know well enough to have any feel for whether or not I should trust them. There are documented instances of some staff having broken trust on this board in the past, but I certainly don't automatically tar all staff with that same brush. Some staff have unsullied reputations. Some staff that I felt I could trust under the previous system are starting to worry me a little under this new one (and that is a very sad state of affairs).

Why in the world should we make the question of whether or not the staff are doing their job properly a question of trust anyway? Who benefits from that?

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Dec 1, 2007

D'Ann said:
Either we trust staff to do the right thing or we don't. I trust staff because I've been in their shoes. Most of staff are good people with good hearts and a strong faith in Christ. We need to have faith in them.

Funny how you did not take this stance when we tried to argue the SAME THING for the legitimate privacy needed for Beth Miqlat ...............

Amoranemix · Dec 1, 2007

I have moved my response to some comments to christianforums.com/t6386418-discussion-of-announcement-new-report-system-information.html. It is however hard to distinguish what should be posted in this thread and what in the discussion thread. Ill post the earlier questions, suggestions and clarifications here and criticism and other suggestions over there, but from Ill post my involvement in the discussion from 27 November on in here as the thread has then clearly turned into an ordinary discussion thread.

Tangeloper 1 said:
Reports are now private.[1]
Members will still receive a PM notifying them that their post was reported. Members will still be able to see the report graphic under their reported post.[2]
Members are allowed to contact by PM a moderator belonging to the team working your reported post.[3] Staff has been instructed to provide you with insight as to the issue that the reported post involves. Staff has also been instructed to counsel you on measures you may take to remedy the situation.

[1] I disagree. Reports should remain public.
[2] That doesnt appear to be the case, but I dont think its a significant problem.
[3] Most members dont have a 4 digit PM box size. Members should be able to post in the report thread. Apparently the Powers That Be are working on letting the most pertinent ordinary member post in the report. Its about time.

Forest 4 said:
How do closed reports help what Lee said in his first announcement...
"Desire for unbiased and fair staff action"

LeeD said that to sooth concerns the members had. Unbiased and fair staff action is fine, but it should not conflict with priorities.

Thirst_for_Knowledge 17 said:
Okay, so the obvious question is, what keeps a mod from abusing their power, now that we are all secretive again?

Apparently the Reconciliation Team is supposed to keep them in check.

Tangeloper 31 said:
There is a chain-of-command within the staff structure.
"Lower-level staff" (i.e. Moderators) will be monitored by "Upper-Level" staff (i.e. Admins & SuperAdmins).

What about the low staff members monitoring the high staff members ?

flaglady 33 said:
The new system is not yet in operation Lisa so all staff have at the moment at FSBs

Where are Lisa0315s posts ?

jtbdad 32 : Well it does confirm my suspicions. Thanks Tangeloper.
Tangeloper 35 : I'm not sure what suspicions of yours have been confirmed. I will state that it's very hard for me to take questions seriously in some cases when they are posed in such a way. If anyone wishes to respectfully ask a question I will do my best to answer.
I have seen a lot of respectfully asked questions to which your answer has been
[nothing]
Was that the best you could come up with ?
Who is responsible for (mis)informing the members ?

jtbdad 40 said:
I would also respectfully offer that staff has never been given permission to ignore questions in the past. Has there been a policy statement that you may "not take seriously" any question that you do not feel is respectfully asked?
Thank you in advance for your answers.

What answers are you thanking her for ?

Watersmoon 56 said:
Before, with open reports, if a thread was reported and Mods saw no violation, but a member did, they had the ability to show that violation to the Mods through a post. Now, since that is no longer possible, will members be able to re-report a post?

Erwin made it so that posts can be reported only once. I cant find the announcement. I think it was made in the All Staff Team Conference Room. It is unlikely they will turn off that feature. The reporter doesnt get enough feedback to see whether the report has been properly handled.

Watersmoon 56 said:
Is there any chance that the feeling and opinions of the members are going to be taken into account for this or any other change?

I havent seen it happening yet.

[FONT=&quot]

Philothei 59 said:
ARe the reports visible ?? I could not see my report.... Pelase explain.. thank you

[/FONT]Reports are currently only visible to the reporter and staff. According to the announcement christianforums.com/t6422716-reports-protocol-revision-semi-private.html that should change soon.

RealDealNeverstop 58 : The solution would be to make report threads visible to all but restrict posting to Staff respective of their assigned forums.
[*] There is already a problem with inequitable and inconsistent rule application. Not to mention some are on Staff purely from luck. Wouldnt be a problem if there wasnt a history of abuse.
Lindon Tinuviel : I don't think so. More likely, Staff would simply be flooded with PMs from everyone who read something that they'd like to comment on. There would be major repetition when different people each remarked on the same Report.

[*]I disagree. Throwing away the baby with the bathwater because you are too lazy to separate the two is irresponsible. Allowing members to post in reports can and did work.
Most members have only 70 slots in their PM box. That should limit the amount of PMs staff receive, or encourage members to donate money. Beside, a policy could be implemented where staff can simply ignore comments on reports.

Where is post 62 ?

Arbovita 69 said:
Everyone Please. Why are yall getting so upset in here? If there is a problem that is not an actual rule violation please send me or my co admin a PM. My pm box is open.

Again, what good would do sending you a PM about polls having been disabled in Wiki/Rules Discussion ?

[FONT=&quot]

Crazy Liz 73 said:
Since when is "discussing mod action" a rule violation again?

[/FONT]Most rules cannot be found under Rules, but I think it was announced somewhere in the thread Christian Forums Under New Management. It is strange that Lindon Tinuviel doesnt know where the rule is mentioned and yet doesnt demand proof that it is indeed a rule.

Arbovita 77 said:
I guess to address the question at large there should be no deletion of post with out proper procedures being followed. If there is a member of the RT should be contacted.

How can we know whether the proper procedures have been followed ?

Amoranemix · Dec 1, 2007

Ladyt28 92 said:
My 2 cents (and you might still want to give me change): open reports creates a "tabloid" kind of feeling with people who are not involved at all following every post in them just for the voyeristic nature of them.[1] Open reports and the threads that follow tends to create an environment where people can "gossip" about accusations and the people who complain the most.[2] I truly cannot see a benefit to the kind of openess that has been mentioned here [3] - all I am seeing are vague accusations of "secrecy" & "conspiracy" and assumptions of unfairness.[4] If you believe the moderators are unfair, then become one or support someone you think is fair.[5] Otherwise the arguements just go in circles with people repeating themselves over and over.[6]

[1]You are not talking about staff are you ? [2] I haven’t seen that. Besides, removing anonymity would make gossip almost non-existent. As it is now staff can gossip like there is no tomorrow. [3] Read the relevant threads in Wiki/Rules Discussion. [4] There is secrecy. I only remember having seen conspiracy being mentioned twice, yours being the second, and I have read about 1500 posts on the reforms. Unfairness has been observed and it is obvious that there must be unfairness with such a system. [5] Easier said than done. Becoming a staff member is not up to you. Those who have to make you a staff member may dislike fairness. [6] Abraham Lincoln said : 'The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.'

Ladyt28 95 said:
Is it secrecy that truly bothers you or just the fact that you're [Lindon Tinuviel] not involved in it to second guess and questions those with the responsibility to address things?[1] And do you believe that you method of "fighting" is effective?[2] The very word "fighting" tells me a lot - "disagreeing" or "objecting" would have been more appropriate words to use if there is a true desire for change.

[1] Regardless of the motivations, the cause and the arguments are good and even when on the other side I would not revoke my principles and would defend the same cause. It is normal that those who benefit from unfair privileges are more inclined to defend them than those who suffer from them and the latter should not be ashamed for protesting. [2] Do you have a better idea ?

jtbdad 96 said:
[ … ]

jtbdad 96 said:
When questioned about this, the staff member would not answer PM's etc. When this was brought to the attention of this staff members supervisor the response was a vote of confidence that this particular Sr. Staff member would never do such a thing. Further PM's quoting and linking the report threads went unanswered. This was not an isolated incident by the way this particular staff member was very inconsistent and would overturn consensus decisions by teams under their supervision on more than a few occasions. There have been several more occasions of staff making inconsistent decisions and then closing threads which pointed out the inconsistency. As for being staff; I served on staff for over 2 years I know what happens in some closed threads and subfora.

What you are saying may be true, but now that reports are secret, such incidents should be rarer, right ?

flaglady 98 said:
I got a question for you. I know that in the States, as in the UK, the public can go and sit in on almost any court case and watch the proceedings.
I never knew you were also permitted to sit in the jury room and observe their deliberations as they decided their verdict.

I suppose you know by know why the jury should deliberate in seclusion. I will give you a relevant difference between real-world justice and the our current ‘court’ system that has not been mentioned yet. The jury deliberates secretly so that they cannot be put under pressure by interested parties. Other parties should be able to see the deliberation, but since these non-interested parties are very difficult to identify it is reasonable to exclude everyone. In our system, those who can pressurize the moderating staff, that is superior staff members, can see the deliberations while those who cannot pressurize staff, that is ordinary members, cannot see the deliberation. Something is amiss.
All in all it is clear that the case of a jury deliberation has reasons for seclusion that do not apply to the case of judging reports and that the latter case has reasons for openness that do not apply to the former. In short : the analogy is flawed. A case can be made though that in some rare instances staff should be able to discuss in private.

Floatingaxe 109 said:
Well, as of this morning, I have access to all reports I make and those others have made against me. So, that kind of openness I think is excellent!

I still don’t have access to reports on me. I haven’t had any report against me that was accepted as far as I know though.

Lindon Tinuviel 117 said:
While I certainly appreciate your evaluation of my character, all I can tell you is that I've been repeatedly asked to join Staff, and I have repeatedly declined. I won't support this system. I will have no part in contributing to this system's shadowy mechanism.

I have never been asked to join staff. I am trying since 21/11 though. So far I have one vote : No. If I can I will be part of this system’s shadowy mechanism. If I don’t do the dirty work, someone else will. I’ll try to be less dirty than the others. If everyone were to do that, the system would become clean.

[FONT=&quot]

jessegirl 122 said:
Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing that "the staff" is doing things that are subversive, one-sided, biased, etc., etc.

[/FONT]When staff stops doing it, you’ll stop hearing about it. Don’t hold your breath.

[FONT=&quot]

jessegirl said:
Just because you as members have issues with a handful of staff members doesn't mean that the staff as a whole is bad. It is likely that the staff you are refferning to isn't even bad, maybe they are. But I don't think it is fair to say that we are all that way.

[/FONT]Staff are bad people. If I am voted on as a moderator, one more bad person will have joined staff. But some people are less bad than others. There may even be an exceptional good person. The system with unaccountability makes it easier for the evil characteristics of staff to emerge and it would help if people on staff would recognize the evil in themselves and their colleagues and fight it and notice when they fail to do good out of complacency. Accountability gives people a mirror of their morality. We don’t need people on staff who think themselves and their colleagues are angels because that is such a comforting belief. The first step to solving a problem is realizing there is a problem. We need people who work on making things better. Abraham Lincoln said : 'Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.'

[FONT=&quot]

jessegirl 122 said:
The staff (myself included) volunteer time out of our days and our lives to see that this site runs smoothly with as little controversy and as few issues as possible. It is a thankless job and while I can accept that, making us out to be some sort of horrible people is unacceptable in my opinion. I can nearly guarantee you that at LEAST 99% of us are here, dealing with all the crap that comes with moderating because we want this site to be good for YOU, the members. I do my best to be honest, fair and just in every report that I work and every moderator that I know does the same.

[/FONT]Your figure is far too optimistic. If 99% of staff acted to make the site good for us, they would expel the rotten apples. The reason that is not happening is because when a staffer is unethical most others close their eyes, and they aren’t doing that to be good for us.

[FONT=&quot]

jessegirl 127 said:
I didn't take it as a personal attack on me...you can look into it as odd if you so choose. I took it as an atack on the staff that busts their humps to keep this site running smoothly.

[/FONT]Obviously you are operating secretly because you are so proud of your work.

Glass*Soul 131 said:
There is a middle ground between havng all reports wide open for everyone to comment in and having them private. I suggest having them open for all registered members to see with the reported person able to comment.

Banning 99% of the members from reports is undesirable, but we will probably have to settle with an unfair compromise.

Glass*Soul said:
Advantages for good staff: we can see and appreciate all your good work. When a few staff misbehave you will be less likely to be tarred with the same brush, as the true culprit will easily be singled out. We learn to trust you.
Advantages for not so good staff: those few will be less tempted to give in to an urge to abuse their power, as their work will be scrutinized by all.
Advantages for non-staff members: less paranoia! (If everything is fair and above board, we'll know it.) More opportunities to learn how the staff are applying the rules (an important thing to know with staff being given so much discretion).

Don’t forget there are also disadvantages associated with open reports. Bad staff would have more difficulty abusing their power. Apparently the disadvantages are decisive. There must be a lot of bad staff.

A New Dawn said:
I completely agree with Moriah here. There are harassment issues that go on and staff, not being there for every single post and response that is made, do not understand, or see, the harassment that goes on, and short of reporting dozens of posts that demonstrate it (which I have done, only to be called a spite reporter), and one report can't show it because it is a snapshot of a single response, I think it should be allowed to have both reporter and reportee be able to post in the report.

I have come across that problem being mentioned a few times when I was wikiing. See for example Wiki: Harrassment and False Accusations. Warnings and user notes should relieve the problem as they allow for some sort of record. I don’t think they are sufficient though.

D&#8217 said:
I liked open reports and I liked being able to read the Staff Conference Room threads. It was nice to have access to these options when I was going through staff withdrawal for a bit of time after resigning.[1]

D&#8217 said:
[ … ]
Either we trust staff to do the right thing or we don't. I trust staff because I've been in their shoes. Most of staff are good people with good hearts and a strong faith in Christ. We need to have faith in them.[2]

[1] Interesting you mention that. When you have privileges and they are taken away from you, it hurts more than when you never had the privileges in the first place. It is an extra weapon for LeeD to keep staff in line. Since they serve at his pleasure, the threat of removal hangs as a sword of Damocles above their heads. It is understandable that those high on the social ladder are more supportive of the totalitarian reforms as LeeD likely watches them closer than the lower staffers.
[2] That’s the Christian way of looking at it. Who cares about reason ? We don’t need evidence. We must have faith in staff.
However, outside matters of religion, most Christians seem to like evidence and reason, so your appeal to faith will probably fall on deaf ears. Trust is earned, not given away.

Glass*Soul said:
I think this is a false dilemma (that we either trust staff or we do not). Not every member of staff is equally trustworthy. Some I trust in some situations but not in others. Some I don't know well enough to have any feel for whether or not I should trust them. There are documented instances of some staff having broken trust on this board in the past, but I certainly don't automatically tar all staff with that same brush. Some staff have unsullied reputations. Some staff that I felt I could trust under the previous system are starting to worry me a little under this new one (and that is a very sad state of affairs).

I feel with you. For example, flaglady seemed to have her heart in the right place, but perhaps it has moved. In post 45 she seems to be enjoying her power over Lisa0315.

ANNOUNCEMENT: New Report System Information

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Episcopalian

Aspire to inspire before you expire

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

Episcopalian

Senior Veteran

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Well-Known Member

Bind my wandering heart to thee!

Catholic... Faith, Hope and the greatest is LOVE

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.

Well-Known Member

Democrat

Democrat

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency